Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

As If They Had A Choice

by dday

The NYT reports that “Democrats Seem Set to Go It Alone on a Health Bill”. In plain English, this means that “Democrats want a health bill.” There was never going to be Republican support for anything calling itself health reform that Democrats and the President would support. You could whittle and whittle and whittle the bill down to nothing and it wouldn’t matter. Somebody in Washington finally figured this out:

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed.

“The Republican leadership,” Mr. Emanuel said, “has made a strategic decision that defeating President Obama’s health care proposal is more important for their political goals than solving the health insurance problems that Americans face every day.”

Ya think? Jon Kyl said yesterday that “There is no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill.” Chuck Grassley admitted that he wouldn’t vote for his own compromise and legitimized the “death panels” smear despite having voted for it in the past. You’re just figuring out that Republicans view their jobs as blocking any legislation at all costs?

We’re starting to hear this meme from the right that liberals are interested in negotiation and compromise with Iran and North Korea, but not with Republicans. Well, we’ve done the negotiations. They led to nothing for months. And the meme itself is false.

In foreign policy, liberals often believe that disputes with foreign actors can and should be settled through negotiation and compromise. That’s because international relations isn’t a zero-sum affair. Conflict is costly to both parties, good relations bring benefits to both parties, so disagreement is generally amenable to compromise. Ideological disagreement isn’t zero-sum either. Neither conservatives nor progressives are wedded to principles that require defense of wasteful Medicare spending. But partisan politics is zero-sum. A ‘win’ for the Democrats is a ‘loss’ for Republicans. And the predominant thinking in the Republican Party at the moment is that inflicting legislative defeats on Democrats will lead to electoral defeats for Democrats. That makes the GOP hard to bargain with.

I would say “impossible.” They’re convinced it’s 1994, and they’re not needed by virtue of the numbers.

So where to go from here? Well, Democrats in the Senate could demand that their members join no Republican filibuster of any health care measure supported by a majority of their ranks. They can choose to not support the final bill if they wish. They should not keep it from a final vote. That’s the simple solution. If that process winds us up with a public option in the House and a weak co-op option in the Senate, the conference committee could actually produce a positive result, provided Harry Reid puts the people on the conference with jurisdiction over the bill, like health subcommittee chair in the Finance Committee Jay Rockefeller (strong public option supporter) and retirement and aging subcommittee chair in the HELP Committee Barbara Mikulski (supporter).

That bill would easily pass the House. The Senate is trickier. But the conference report can’t be amended. It can’t be changed, or held up in committee. It can be filibustered, and it can be voted against. Those are the options. If three Democrats opposed the legislation and wanted to kill it, they would literally have to filibuster it (this is assuming that Democrats have 60 votes, which is not certain given Kennedy’s health). That would be a very hard thing to do at that stage in the game. It would isolate the obstructionists, ensuring funded primary challenges and the enduring enmity of the Senate leadership and the White House. Kent Conrad can say that there aren’t enough votes for a public option and imply that he’s just protecting the final bill from defeat. But is he willing to be one of those “no” votes? Is he willing to filibuster? That’s a different game indeed.

At this point, no Democratic Senator has committed to joining a Republican filibuster, an important distinction. The conservaDems should be asked if they plan to do so.

If that fails and President Nelson (who likes to shout at public option supporters in the media off camera) or some other newly elected President tries to torpedo the bill, there’s the option of splitting reform into two bills, with the filibuster-able stuff in one bill, and stuff relevant to the budget packed into a bill that can be achieved with 50 votes in budget reconciliation. That makes those provisions likely to be subject to a sunset, but once a public option, expanded Medicaid, increasing subsidies and other budget-relevant things get enacted, I submit it will be hard for any Congress to allow them to expire. Failing that, there’s the straight reconciliation path, which contra Chris Matthews is not “blowing up Senate rules” but part of them (someone who’s never talked a word about Senate rules in his whole career should probably not start now), but which could get messy if elements not relevant to the budget got excised.

Or, Democrats could behave like Republicans and rule by fear and questioning opponents’ patriotism. But that’s, er, unlikely.

The point being, there are options, and lots more open up when you recognize the large majorities in both houses of Congress cancel the need for bipartisanship inside Washington.

.

“On What Planet Do You Spend Most Of Your Time?”

by digby

The truth hurts.

.

Progressives Have Constituents Too

by digby

The progressives had a conference call today:

In the face of White House backsliding Monday, Pelosi reiterated that a public option is essential to reform. Pelosi gave the caucus a “pep talk,” one attendee said, pushing the party to keep pressing the message. She assured an ultimate victory.

“Everyone has said on the record that they would support [the public option]. But there is a concern that the conference report would give them an out,” said an aide briefed on the call by his boss. “Some people spoke up and said, ‘We can’t give in on the conference report.'”

[…]

“I was surprised there were so many people who were still so firm on [the public option],” said a participant. “A lot of people were saying this is what they’re hearing from their constituents.”

You don’t say …

And as for those co-ops:

Wisconsin Democrats David Obey and Tammy Baldwin told the caucus about the performance of the state’s own public health insurance option and co-op. The co-op hasn’t saved the state any money whatsoever and shouldn’t be a model for a national plan, said Obey, who chairs the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Baldwin concurred, adding that the state’s public option — seniors can buy state-sponsored health care for a nominal fee — cut costs by two-thirds.

I seem to recall somebody saying not long ago that they were all about “what works.” Seems to me we have a pretty good idea of what that is.

Update: This NYT story indicates that it comes as some sort of surprise that progressives have just suddenly decided to hang tough. That’s just not true. I first wrote about this back on June 3rd:

Darcy mentioned to me that this week is an important moment in the health care debate, in which it might be helpful for members of the netroots to weigh in with a little positive reinforcement to the progressive caucus, which has been holding the leadership’s feet to the fire on the public plan option. Everyone pretty much agrees that if that goes down, health care reform will be a meaningless shell game.

I was somewhat surprised frankly (in a good way)to hear the the progressives caucus had pulled together on this one and was actually wielding some clout. They represent over 70 m4mbers of congress, which is a big bloc of votes. If they can stick together on the public plan, it will happen.

If one of these House members is your Congressional Representative, all the better. But contact one or more of them even if they aren’t. They need to know that people other than lobbyists and big donors are engaged and informed on this and that we know what’s at stake with the public plan.

The Village seems to have just awakened to the fact that the progressives are holding the line, but they’ve been organized around this for months.

Which reminds me. If you haven’t thrown some money to the caucus please click here and give them your support.

Check it out:

.

Been A Long Time

Since I was told that I hate America. I have to admit I missed it.

Actually I thought this was a fairly strange “expose” of Netroots Nation, whereupon O’Reilly allowed smart, liberal Americans to actually express their views without interruption, perhaps for the first time ever on his show. More exposes please!

.

“Emotion Is Part Of The Human Animal”

by digby

Perlstein did a great Washington Post chat today about his article on the crazies being a constant factor in American politics. Great stuff all around. For instance, he argued that carrying guns to a political event is a betrayal of our founding democratic principles that political disputes should be settled by non-violent means. (That sounds right to me, but I get the feeling that some of these folks think that the Second Amendment is a sacred divination that trumps everything else. In practice, it is.)

But Rick talked about some other things that were equally fascinating, particularly the issue of why the demagogic rhetoric of the right seems to work so well:

You can’t “demand” that people be more logical. Emotion is part of the human animal. What I would have liked to have seen, as an advocate of healthcare reform, is for Obama and the rhetoric to COMBINE rational appeals with emotional ones–like FDR and and Truman and LBJ did so effectively in their own attempts to pass progressive legislation. They roused people in their lizard-brains, too, just for progressive ends. Read a book about the 1948 presidential election–Truman made arguments in a very blunt, emotional style…

And he mentions my biggest pet peeve — the sell-out on populist economic issues, which should naturally belong to the left right now and is instead (dangerously) being appropriated by the right:

Somewhere along the line Democrats lost a sense of their natural power base–which is the fact that their ideas are economically beneficial to the vast majority. Acknowledging this fact became “demagoguery.” Conservatives convinced them it was “class warfare.” They became afraid of their simplest and most powerful message. All the other timidity follows from that.

In our country, populism has almost always been caught up in race and nativism, but it didn’t have to be that way this time. The democratic Party’s ties with corporate America cause a great deal of this problem to be sure, but I agree with Rick that much of this is sheer Pavlovian reflex. They are afraid to say the truth. The right is unafraid to lie. And that leads to a distorted political dialog that nobody can understand. And into that void, the scare tactics have a distinct advantage.

Read the whole thing. Perlstein knows how to argue with conservatives better than anyone I know.

.

Who’s Your Daddy?

by digby

So, Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd are saying that health care with a public option won’t pass because the Blue Dogs don’t want it and liberals won’t accept this political reality and need to stop being such silly utopians. In other words, liberals need to eat shit because there is a conservative majority.

Except, of course, that isn’t really true, is it? The Republicans have taken themselves out of the game and within the Democratic Party, liberals have the majority. The Progressive Caucus is twice as large as the Blue Dogs and we have at least 45 Senators on record for the public plan in the Senate. If they want to block legislation they can do it. If the White House needs somebody to eat shit, there’s a far better political reason for it to be the Blue Dogs and the corporate lackeys in the Senate than the progressives.

All Obama has to do is tell the Blue Dogs that he won’t work for them in 2010 if they don’t support him. They’re toast if there’s no health care reform anyway, because Dems are going to suffer big losses with Obama’s failure and they will be the ones who lose their seats. It’s not like the Republicans are going to go easy on Blue Dogs in swing districts out of the goodness of their hearts.

It’s the New Blue Dogs who are tied to Obama’s coat tails, not the liberals who are in safe seats. And according to Charlie Cook, there are about 20 of them who stand to lose, which leaves the Dems comfortably in the majority. The liberals have the power to do this.

I don’t expect the villagers to be able to see that the game has changed, because they live in an alternate universe where time stood still somewhere around 1997. But one would hope that Obama understands that he needs liberals to stick on this one. If he pushes them too far, he loses it all.

Jack Cafferty, of all people, put it rather starkly today, when he wondered if Obama was “tough enough”:

Americans are going to see how Obama governs when it comes to a divisive issue like health care reform. Even though there are many critics, will he push through on the public option, which is probably the best way to compete with the insurance industry and bring costs down.

And it’s not just about health care either. Some suggest the President’s beginning to appear weak and wishy washy on a range of issues, whether it’s gays in the military or immigration reform or going around apologizing to other countries. At times the president appears to be ineffective at even leading his own party as the Democrats continue to wander around like a gaggle of unruly children. Mr Obama ought to call a meeting of the Democratic leadership and say “I’m the boss and if you don’t like it, there are ways of making your life miserable, especially when it comes time for your re-election.”

I don’t often agree with Cafferty, and the president is not a dictator. But he is the leader of his party and in a situation where the issue boils down to whether or not the Democrats can hold 60 votes for cloture, there is no excuse for bargaining away the store and telling the progressives in the House that they have to cave rather than the minority Blue Dogs.

Unless, of course, that’s what he wants to do, in which case we have much bigger problems. We’ll know soon enough.

.

Townhall Putsch

by digby

From Think Progress:

At the event, local news stations were interviewing an Israeli man who was praising the “fantastic” “national health care” in Israel. During his remarks, a woman yelled out, “Heil Hitler!” The man stopped, became visibly upset, and exclaimed, “Did you hear this? She say to a Jew, ‘Heil Hitler’! Hear? I’m a Jew! You’re telling me, ‘Heil Hitler’? Shame of you!” After he angrily confronts her, the woman mocks him by making a crying sound to imply he is a whining baby.

Aye yay yay. You can see the video at the link.

Meanwhile, we have others packing heat, intimidating opponents and members of the government.

Earlier CNN featured a former secret service agent who had this to say:

Former USSS officer: If the police have to go out and deal with these foolish gun nuts with exposed weapons in public crowds, they are being taken awy from activity that is much more important and that is to keep our president safe and to kep the public safe.

Rick Sanchez: In all your years as a Secret Service agent have you ever seen anything like this? Ten to twelve people yesterday were walking around this venue where the president was, walking outside, and they were packing. Have you ever seen a situation like that?

USSS: No, I’ve never seen or heard of anything like that. And I think it’s, you know, I think all of us should be concerned about this. What’s the next step? Are they going to ride around in pick-up trucks with automatic weapons? it would be like Somalia.

We’re a democratic country. And we should be better than this. And what’s the point? What’s the point of them carrying these things? It’s intimidation. Why hsould we tolerate that?

Sanchez: It’s free speech and their point is that “we’ve got a right to come out and show everybody that we’re for a constitution that gives us a right to bear arms.

USSS: It’s probably also not against the law to bring a can of gas and a match into an event. Is that a good idea? No.

Having exposed weapons at public events, and it’s not just presidential events, I would say this at any public event, particularly where people are disagreeing, it’s really a formula for disaster.

Why does the picture of a bunch of yahoos driving around in pick-up trucks with automatic weapons not sound all that far fetched to me? And when you add the gasbags shrieking about liberals being the enemy all day long, this doesn’t seem so far-fetched either.

Update: Some gun nut jackass on Hardball just said that “an armed society is a polite society.”

Nice little free speech you have there, Americans. Be a shame if something happened to it.

Update II: Apparently, even though it’s generally a bad idea for there to be guns around public officials in volatile situations, these gun toters are there protecting the citizenry from union thugs and it has made the events much more peaceful.

I’m sure it has. People would be out of their minds to challenge someone who’s carrying an automatic weapon. It’s an excellent way to keep people from speaking out.

As David Cross said on The Daily Show last night, these guys are saying “I let my gun do my talking for me.” And we all hear what it’s saying, loud and clear. No problemo.

Welcome to America, land of the free.

.

“Trojans, some of them used”

by digby

Ok, so everybody knows the Republicans won’t vote for a public option because it’s a Trojan horse for single payer. So, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to read this:

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a “Trojan horse” for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it’s still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

Republicans see Trojans everywhere but they believe in abstinence only. Everyone knows a few of them are big teases but in the end they will just say no.

Kent Conrad, the perpetual whiner who has been pushing this silly co-op nonsense for months now, set co-ops up from the get as a prophylactic for his fellow Democratic corporate lackeys. It has nothing to do with Republicans. Never did. It would be best if everyone just abstained from pretending that bipartisanship was ever on the table and faced the real problem: STDs (Supine Two-faced Democrats.)

.

I Would Call It Hubris

by digby

… if they ever, ever had to pay a price for their overweening arrogance:

How much will it cost the American International Group to keep its chief executive to help stabilize the troubled insurer? At least $7 million a year. A.I.G. disclosed Monday in a regulatory filing that it would pay Robert H. Benmosche, 65, the former head of MetLife, $3 million a year in cash and $4 million in stock. Mr. Benmosche will also be eligible for up to $3.5 million in stock as part of an incentive plan, A.I.G. said in a regulatory filing. The pay package has received preliminary approval by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the administration official in charge of overseeing compensation for top executives at seven large firms bailed out by the federal government, according to the regulatory filing. Mr. Benmosche will receive significantly more than the dollar a year earned by his predecessor, Edward M. Liddy, a former head of Allstate who came out of retirement to try to turn A.I.G. around after it received $182 billion in government aid. The government now owns nearly 80 percent of the company. (Mr. Liddy, however, received about $460,000 to compensate for air travel, housing and other expenses.) Mr. Liddy, who unlike Mr. Benmosche also held the title of chairman, described his job at A.I.G. as public service, one where he was charged with reshaping the company after its near-collapse last fall. Under him, the company began exploring deals to sell assets in hopes of repaying some of the hundreds of billions of dollars it received from the government. This month, A.I.G. reported its first quarterly profit since 2007, though Mr. Liddy warned that the insurance businesses “remain challenged.” But Mr. Liddy was criticized by Congress for paying retention bonuses to people in its financial products unit, the division that sold the credit-default swaps that nearly brought A.I.G. to financial ruin. He was not in charge when those contracts were struck. He has said that A.I.G. would need to pay his successor significantly more in order to retain a well-qualified individual.

I suppose that means he thinks he’s taking a 50% pay cut.

This is sickening. This is essentially a publicly owned company. And yet, for some reason, the only people I ever hear complaining about all this are the tea baggers. Are they wrong?

.

Holding The Line

by digby

The NY Times this morning says that nobody knows what co-ops do, the Republicans are rejecting them outright and the Democrats are disappointed. And this is really funny:

Some lawmakers said the White House had sent mixed signals, confusing friend and foe alike on Capitol Hill.

Ya think?

Maybe it’s 37 dimensional chess, but more confusion may not be the best tactic at the moment, what with the death panels, teabag hysteria and all. As I said yesterday, progressives can only hold their own line at this point and keep the pressure on. And they’re doing it.

I was on a panel at Netroots Nation with Congressman Eric Massa. He was adamant about the public plan. There was no need to cajole him into supporting it, he had been there all along. He is also in a very tough swing district and his town halls have been horrific. It didn’t move him, he stood and fought with his own constituents and came out even more committed because he realized just how important it was going to be to the very people who were so sadly misinformed.

That’s called leadership and it deserves our support and thanks. So, Blue America thought it would be a good idea to do a little positive reinforcement and thank those who have gone out on a limb on this and are standing fast. 65 members of congress have pledged that they will not vote for a bill that does not contain a public plan and we would like to reward them.

If you have a couple of bucks to spare to thank the Progressive Caucus members who have drawn this line in the sand, please click here and give them your support.

Support The Progressive Line

.